Wow! Unless I’m very confused, beneath all the O-babble here, Obama is conceding that low taxes benefit the economy:
Democrat Barack Obama says he would delay rescinding President Bush’s tax cuts on wealthy Americans if he becomes the next president and the economy is in a recession, suggesting such an increase would further hurt the economy.
Nevertheless, Obama has no plans to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration date, as Republican John McCain advocates. Instead, Obama wants to push for his promised tax cuts for the middle class, he said in a broadcast interview aired Sunday.
“Even if we’re still in a recession, I’m going to go through with my tax cuts,” Obama said. “That’s my priority.”
What about increasing taxes on the wealthy?
“I think we’ve got to take a look and see where the economy is. I mean, the economy is weak right now,” Obama said on “This Week” on ABC. “The news with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, I think, along with the unemployment numbers, indicates that we’re fragile.”
In other words, while Obama shies desperately away from simple declarative sentences, what he’s saying is that his taxes have nothing to do with economic strength. If they did, nothing would prevent his immediately rescinding the Bush tax cuts so that his Obamonomics could help “grow the economy.” Instead, he’s conceding that tax increases are economically damaging, since they could, if enacted, harm an already fragile economy.
Still, Obama remains committed to making those who pay the most taxes pay even more taxes. Let’s put that in other words too: raising taxes has nothing to do with the economy under the Obama plan and everything to do with wealth redistribution. Under the blathering, under the equivocation, under the confusion generated by the vague words, Obama is stating “This is socialism. Taxes are not about paying for the government, a cost that should be kept to a reasonable minimum so that Americans can manage their own money and keep the money growing. They are about punishing the rich, and redistributing wealth in America under the government aegis.”
UPDATE: I wanted to point out that I didn’t misconstrue how the AP reported the above story. The New York Times sums Obama’s words up in he same way:
On ABC’s “This Week,” Mr. Obama said the United States economic condition is “fragile” and pledged that if elected he would push ahead with his plan to provide tax relief to the middle class. But he said he would consider delaying any tax increases to wealthy Americans — by rescinding President Bush’s tax cuts — for fear of its damaging impact on the economy.
Again, this can only be understood as a concession increasing taxes damages an economy. The corollary, of course, is that leaving taxes low, or even lowering them, is probably goo for the economy. With the further corollary that any effort on Obama’s part to raise taxes on “the rich” is punitive in nature and has nothing to do with the economy.
UPDATE II: Here’s the link to the interview on “This Week.”
UPDATE III: I’m not the only one who understood that Obama was conceding that tax hikes weaken an economy. Ed Morrisey (aka the Captain) caught that too.Email This Post To A Friend
20 Responses to “Beneath the gobbledy-gook, an implied concession about taxes *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.